Wrong, Dominions 3 lacks unit customization, city building mechanics or technological research. Not given that the combat is also different as you can manage it in Elemental.

Dominions is a much simpler game overall than Elemental, that's why they can afford a pretty complex combat system (that is totally build around the concepts of human vs humand and play by mail). Elemental is a total different beast, even the game focus (single player) makes it totally different from a design perspective.

Can you prove combat would be primitive without A and B? But not counting that, this has to do that some attributes add very little to the combat, so they can be seen as unnecesary (while others are far more general and interesting, like archery or morale). We could just take DnD and put all the attributes a player/monster has for every Elemental unit, but that would be a suicide.

I highly doubt Elemental (TBS) has plans to have combat like Baldurs Gate (RPG) at a bigger scale. Most mass combat systems that are based on DnD elements are horribly complicated (like Cry Havoc from Malhavoc Press or Fields of Blood from Eden Studios): they are a pain to understand, units are too hard to design, they require an intimate knowledge of the ruleset,...

There are so many rules and weirdness there that just implementing something similar to that ruleset for combat is out of the reach of the manpower Stardock has devoted to Elemental.

Useful attribute, this will be a common thing.

Attribute we can live without, pretty strange situation.

The combat is one of the best parts of Dominions because it's one of the only parts it has. It would be a mistake doing it simple like it will be doing it too complex in Elemental. And please, stop the Civ 4 comparison: Civ 4 doesn't have tactical combat! Compare it to TW, which will be far more similar probably.

And that's more than enough for a game like Elemental (and more given that you can design your custom units).

You are wrong, your examples show it makes for complex combat, those are two very different things.

The developers have already posted the combat system plans are to match those of Baldurs Gate(RPG).  The developers have also posted how they would like to see the game eventually modded to provide an RPG game. 

 Dual wielding melee and missile weapons has never been a common thing, but it will definitely be more common within Elemental if the attack attribute is used for both melee and missile weapons.

  That is just one of the many types of corruption attacks... as mentioned in my original post I can easily provide many more examples where these attributes are needed.

The battles in Dominions_3 are fun and easily more fun than the battles of CIV_4.  Considering the Stardock developers have 4x's as many developers they should pursue the most fun parts of each game.  BaldursGate had great fun battles for example.  I never said CIV_4 doesn't have tactical combat...  I merely pointed out that out of all the features within CIV_4 it's weakest point is the combat because the Diplomacy, Map Generation, Researching, etc., etc., are all stronger than it's combat. 

I strongly disagree because as a map maker I know having more attributes allows for a greater number of unique fantasy creatures.  Stardock mentions in the developer thread how they're reviewing all games and ideally should recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each game.  Whether its BaldursGate, Dominions_3,

You just wrote in the same post how the Dominions_3 combat system is enjoyable because it's one of its only parts, but now you write it's not enjoyable and instead complex.  The Dominions_3 combat system can be done by anyone as the beginner gamer just moves the commander/units into any enemy/neutral province... the options for providing your units and commanders specific commands or specific locations are merely options for being more effective. 

Having worked with developers daily in my career it's easier to include the additional attributes now and then later choose for them to be dormant as compared with adding them later into a finished product.

MoM and AoW have six or seven meaningful statistics, depending on how they are counted. HoMM and KB have a few more. None of these have particularly shallow tactical combat mechanics. The total number is deceptive because none of these progress beyond a ATT/DEF/(DAM)/RES/HP/MP/MOV/(INIT) system. Special abilities add most of the flavor. All of the games mentioned above can comfortably handle the examples raised at the beginning of this thread. Elemental combat doesn't need to reinvent the wheel by bringing in RPGs' fascination with bloated statlines.

As an aside, I don't understand why so many people sing Dominon's praises. It's not a patch on MoM/HoMM/KB/AoW/any other game that can be reduced to an acronym.

A link for this please? I suppose it refers to the continous turns mechanic and not to the whole DnD ruleset, but who knows. About modding, that's a total different thing and doesn't affect this argument.

You don't play many Total War games, right?

You can provide nearly infinite strange cases, but not common ones. That's why those attributes aren't really needed.

Again, battles are like they are in Dominions because the game is nearly all about battles. Civ 4 battles are like they are because the game is about a lot of things. Elemental is more like Civ in that aspect than like Dominions: Elemental does a lot of things, and it has to strike a balance between complexity in each individual area and overall complexity of the game. So far, Elemental is even more complex than Civ 4 (more complex economy, more complex city building, 2 types of research, tactical combat, unit customization, heroes,...).

That's why something that worked in Dominions can be a total failure in Elemental.

They can be added in mods if you want to add them, but we are talking about vanilla Elemental.

Those 2 words aren't exclusive either, it depends in the context. I like it complex in Dominions because that's nearly the only thing you do in that game. I don't think I'll like it in Elemental because I will be doing a lot of things, so a simpler combat fits better.

Any good programing product has to satisfy several things usually. In a modable game, it means it has to be extensible, so adding them later on even if they aren't in vanilla Elemental should be a technical reality. Adding things that aren't going to be used is just a plain mistake (more code to build, to test, to integrate, to balance, to maintain,...), that's not a good development practice.

Personally I don't think that argument is as pertinent as you make it out to be, particularly in this case. 

For one, compare Civ IV to earlier versions of Civilization games. Do they just shift around complexity between different areas and make little modifications here and there? No, not really - they add complexity.

Obviously there is such a thing as too much complexity, and throwing too much at the player all at once is not a good thing. For example, having an extremely complicated economy, an extremely complicated diplomatic system, and extremely complicated city-building system, etc, all in one could definitely become overwhelming - those are all things that you generally consider all at once.

Combat, however, happens by itself. When you are fighting, you are not engaging in diplomacy, or building cities, or managing resources. This is even more true in Elemental than in Civ IV, where combat happened on the regular map and didn't require a shift in focus. In Elemental, combat will require a complete and total shift in focus from the rest of the game to combat. While engaged in a battle, combat is the only thing you need to think about. It is of course related to the other portions of the game (diplomacy affects when and where you fight, resources and economy and cities etc affect what you fight with, and also where you fight), but once combat is engaged those all become largely irrelevant!

Therefore, combat can still be complex almost regardless of what the rest of game is like. In my opinion, of course. But my point is that comparing combat complexity to, for example, economic complexity is not a good analogy. Combat, at least tactical combat (not Civ combat), demands a complete shift in focus, whereas you are always dealing with economic considerations when building, or engaging in diplomacy, establishing resources, etc. Combat complexity does not mix with the complexities of other aspects of the game.

I think it's pretty solid given how things are designed, at least compared to the "taking the best parts of other games and putting them together will create a great game". Things aren't designed in a vacuum and there are lots of things from one system that affect others.

That's false man, sorry to break it for you. Check interviews with Soren Johnson and he clearly states that the objective of Civ IV was to streamline the Civilization experience and shift the focus in some parts, not to make it more complex than it already was.

I don't really follow you here to be honest: combat is a part of the game, even if it happens separately. Adding lots of stats for tactical combat make other parts of the game harder (unit creation, spell research, army formation,...). This affects not only players playing, but also design balancing. I don't even think it's the part where players are expected to be expending most of their play time (although some people will, but others will auto-resolve and move on).

Your argument would make sense if combat was totally disociated from the rest of the game, but it's clearly not the case.

Edit: I'm going to disagree with myself, it doesn't make sense even if combat was totally disociated.

Civ isn't really dumbed down strategy. Its more of a pure strategy, with less tactical attributes (since most multiplayer games end up delving into the warfare aspects, even though thats only a small part of the game, there probably should of been more tactical issues addressed) ... regardless, its like 95% strategy and 5% tactics.

Vicente -> Do you realize that if we gonna have ATT/DEF/SPEED attribs only, the whole combat system will be heavily RNG based?

Of course, I never argued otherwise. My only point is that I believe that tactical combat tends to affect and be affected less by other aspects of a game.

Well then he failed, because it is. He can say whatever he want, but whatever his goals were Civ IV is a more complex game than its predecessors. It is of course more streamlined, but that is independent of complexity (the more streamlined a game, the easier its complexity is to manage, but the no less complex). Diplomacy is a good example - Civ IV's diplomacy is significantly more advanced and complex than its predecessors. IIRC, even its resources, how they tie into city development and technology, are more complex (but I'm not 100% sure on this specific example, it's been a while since I played earlier versions of Civ).

Again, I'm not saying (or I didn't mean to say) that tactical combat exists in a vacuum; only that it is more isolated from other aspects of a game. That it affects design balancing for one is besides my point (sure it is in general harder for devs to get it right**), I am only talking about gameplay, not development challenges. More complex combat will affect unit design and army formation, but I don't think by a huge amount (I am not personally advocating a full-blown RPG-like stat system, I think that is too much except at most for heroes & such). Of course adding in full-blown RPG-like stats will make things too complex, IMO - in RPGs you only have to deal with a small handful of characters, in Elemental we will be managing armies. But having ATT, DEF, HP/Strength, Willpower/Discipline, Morale and Endurance (plus tags for special abilities and properties - most of which wouldn't come into play for regular troops) does not seem like it'd present an overwhelming challenge to players. And I don't think it'll negatively effect spell research at all - in fact the opposite. Magic is supposed to be one of the major focuses of the game, and having a deeper combat system allows them to take the magic system even farther.

**While too complex can make it harder for devs to strike a good balance, too simple can have the same problem - and often a too-simple system is even harder to resolve because you have many fewer degrees of freedom to futz with. If 3 numbers determine all combat, there is not really that much you can do to balance things out and still have interesting combat. The fewer variables that go into it, the more homogenous the result; the more variables that go into it, the worse of a fine-tuning problem you have.

and I think with proper tactics ATTK/DEF/SPEED can be handled elegantly, and not be dependant on an excess of abilities ... however I certainly think the commanders of the army should aquire a plethora of traits over time which effect his ability to lead armies and his ability to run the state. Many of these combat modifiers should hopfully add bonuses to the combat effectiveness of the units he leads.

I do think that Missile Attack should be different from Melee attack, but if the Longbow has an attack of 4 and the Short-sword has an attack of 3, it would handle itself.

Would  I like Protection and Defense/ Sharpness and Attack? certainly, it would represent skill-based vs equipment based. Although it seems Strength/HP will cover all of skill-based combat.

I don't think excessive stats will be "needed" for large scale warfare, but certainly should be "existing and non-usable" during the vanilla game (except perhaps with Heroes) ... as modder resources so that stats don't have to be "added" into the engine, they are already there simply invisible.

It's not only the game design, or the balance, or all the extra variables the player has to take into account when building, researching and planning, it's also how long it takes to make a turn: if building cities takes time, researching takes time, building units take time, playing combat takes time,... then it takes an hour to make a turn, and when you think you need 200 hours to finish a game you go and kill yourself. Or you start taking all the measures you can to shorten turn time (auto governors, auto combat,...) and then complexity was added for the AI only, because you are just skipping it.